Not sure what topic, I have an insurance question. -first speed ticket in 12yrs period... on mbike 168kmh alleged east of London 401, May 2015 -did you go to trial? no bargained for straight "speed fine=$782", NO stunt driving because 1/6 judges will give you "jail time" in this area, ... so I was told by legal council -did you hire a paralegal, yes for $2,200 tax incl. -TD Meloche Monnex Insurance customer of 25 yrs, never at fault, 7* rated driver Today I get a call from a nice TD rep. saying "your insurance will be cancelled in 1 mth for you/wife/kids" - have a nice day, no alternatives, good luck with your search. "We won't insure 'major convictions' end of story" -TD So any suggestions on where to go, what to say?
Not sure what topic, I have an insurance question.
-first speed ticket in 12yrs period... on mbike 168kmh alleged east of London 401, May 2015
-did you go to trial? no bargained for straight "speed fine=$782", NO stunt driving because 1/6 judges will give you "jail time" in this area, ... so I was told by legal council
-did you hire a paralegal, yes for $2,200 tax incl.
-TD Meloche Monnex Insurance customer of 25 yrs, never at fault, 7* rated driver
Today I get a call from a nice TD rep. saying "your insurance will be cancelled in 1 mth for you/wife/kids" - have a nice day, no alternatives, good luck with your search.
"We won't insure 'major convictions' end of story" -TD
my insurance was renewed without incident early Nov 2015, but now that it expires Nov 2016, NOW the red flag came up, recall MY CONVICTION date was end of Nov 2015, so that spared me ONE YEAR of good timing. Insurance companies go by CONVICTION DATE 3yrs and not offense date May 2015. Demerits disappear in 2yrs Insurance in 3yrs :)
my insurance was renewed without incident early Nov 2015, but now that it expires Nov 2016, NOW the red flag came up, recall MY CONVICTION date was end of Nov 2015, so that spared me ONE YEAR of good timing.
Insurance companies go by CONVICTION DATE 3yrs and not offense date May 2015.
If you can't get coverage through a regular provider, you'll need to go through facility insurance. They provide insurance for everyone, but the rates are astronomical since they only insure those deemed "high risk". Probably also want to look at seeing if your wife and children can get regular coverage without you on their plan. Probably be required to sign a waiver stating you can never operate vehicles they've insured or the coverage would be void.
If you can't get coverage through a regular provider, you'll need to go through facility insurance. They provide insurance for everyone, but the rates are astronomical since they only insure those deemed "high risk". Probably also want to look at seeing if your wife and children can get regular coverage without you on their plan. Probably be required to sign a waiver stating you can never operate vehicles they've insured or the coverage would be void.
Nice registered letter came in the mail 5 days after initial TD phone call making the cancellation official. "1 or more major conviction within the last 3 years". Got my first ins. quote back from a BROKER was $900/yr, now will be $2,400/yr for next 2 yrs. So $3,000 insurance total penalty over 2yrs on top of $800 towing/7days storage during initial alleged offense and never proven in a court of law. Never an at fault accident in 38 yrs of driving. No speed ticket or any ticket for 12 yrs. If you do the math on this thread and add 200 for travel to/from impound lot... $7,000 total. And you wonder why people won't stop for cops anymore.
Nice registered letter came in the mail 5 days after initial TD phone call making the cancellation official. "1 or more major conviction within the last 3 years".
Got my first ins. quote back from a BROKER was $900/yr, now will be $2,400/yr for next 2 yrs. So $3,000 insurance total penalty over 2yrs on top of $800 towing/7days storage during initial alleged offense and never proven in a court of law.
Never an at fault accident in 38 yrs of driving.
No speed ticket or any ticket for 12 yrs.
If you do the math on this thread and add 200 for travel to/from impound lot...
$7,000 total.
And you wonder why people won't stop for cops anymore.
Yep, it is "legal" robbery... they have the guns and jails so they can legally rob you! Now more on this... So I am confused by this... you were never convicted of the speeding charge? I am pretty sure that insurance can not use a roadside suspension against you. You have to have been actually convicted.
Yep, it is "legal" robbery... they have the guns and jails so they can legally rob you!
Now more on this...
250alp wrote:
...initial alleged offense and never proven in a court of law...
So I am confused by this... you were never convicted of the speeding charge?
I am pretty sure that insurance can not use a roadside suspension against you. You have to have been actually convicted.
All of which could be avoided by you driving sensibly and not going 68 over the limit. The severe penalties for doing what you did have been in place for several years now. Don't blame the police, don't blame the insurance companies, and don't blame the government. Blame yourself and consider this saga a lesson learned.
250alp wrote:
Nice registered letter came in the mail 5 days after initial TD phone call making the cancellation official. "1 or more major conviction within the last 3 years".
Got my first ins. quote back from a BROKER was $900/yr, now will be $2,400/yr for next 2 yrs. So $3,000 insurance total penalty over 2yrs on top of $800 towing/7days storage during initial alleged offense and never proven in a court of law.
Never an at fault accident in 38 yrs of driving.
No speed ticket or any ticket for 12 yrs.
If you do the math on this thread and add 200 for travel to/from impound lot...
$7,000 total.
And you wonder why people won't stop for cops anymore.
All of which could be avoided by you driving sensibly and not going 68 over the limit. The severe penalties for doing what you did have been in place for several years now. Don't blame the police, don't blame the insurance companies, and don't blame the government. Blame yourself and consider this saga a lesson learned.
So I am confused by this... you were never convicted of the speeding charge? I am pretty sure that insurance can not use a roadside suspension against you. You have to have been actually convicted. Convicted in absentia??
jsherk wrote:
Yep, it is "legal" robbery... they have the guns and jails so they can legally rob you!
Now more on this...
250alp wrote:
...initial alleged offense and never proven in a court of law...
So I am confused by this... you were never convicted of the speeding charge?
I am pretty sure that insurance can not use a roadside suspension against you. You have to have been actually convicted.
I didn't know that insurance agents have guns and jails. The excessive penalties described here are insurance costs, nothing to do with the police nor even the government. The insurance companies see a correlation between excessive speed and excessive claims so they don't want to insure drivers like that. But sure, it's just easier to blame the police for everything.
jsherk wrote:
Yep, it is "legal" robbery... they have the guns and jails so they can legally rob you!.
I didn't know that insurance agents have guns and jails. The excessive penalties described here are insurance costs, nothing to do with the police nor even the government.
The insurance companies see a correlation between excessive speed and excessive claims so they don't want to insure drivers like that.
But sure, it's just easier to blame the police for everything.
Former Ontario Police Officer. Advice will become less relevant as the time goes by !
The government makes insurance mandatory and therefore we have to pay for it or else they send their guys with guns to enforce it. The government is the one sending the police to charge for pre-crime speeding when there is no proof that it was unsafe. So the execessive insurance costs are directly related to government intervention. I agree that the police are just doing their job... the job the government tells them to do. The problem though with both government and police is that they have taken an oath to the Queen, not to the people, so they have no requirement to serve us or do what is right for us.
argyll wrote:
The excessive penalties described here are insurance costs, nothing to do with the police nor even the government.
The government makes insurance mandatory and therefore we have to pay for it or else they send their guys with guns to enforce it. The government is the one sending the police to charge for pre-crime speeding when there is no proof that it was unsafe. So the execessive insurance costs are directly related to government intervention.
I agree that the police are just doing their job... the job the government tells them to do. The problem though with both government and police is that they have taken an oath to the Queen, not to the people, so they have no requirement to serve us or do what is right for us.
I'd love for you to go and tell the family of someone killed by a speeder that you think speed enforcement is not doing what's right. You have consistently failed to reply when asked to comment on whether all speeds that don't result in injury are safe. Can I do 100 in a school zone if I don't hit any one ? What about 150 ? You repeat your mantra that if no-one is hurt then there should be no enforcement but enforcement stops people doing the things that can cause catastrophies. Darwinism is fine if it the driver getting killed but sadly it is often the people not encased in steel who are the victims.
I'd love for you to go and tell the family of someone killed by a speeder that you think speed enforcement is not doing what's right. You have consistently failed to reply when asked to comment on whether all speeds that don't result in injury are safe. Can I do 100 in a school zone if I don't hit any one ? What about 150 ? You repeat your mantra that if no-one is hurt then there should be no enforcement but enforcement stops people doing the things that can cause catastrophies. Darwinism is fine if it the driver getting killed but sadly it is often the people not encased in steel who are the victims.
Former Ontario Police Officer. Advice will become less relevant as the time goes by !
If enforcement was so effective then nobody would get killed by speeders! Some speeds are not safe. But speed limits are not about safe speeds. They are just a random numbers on a sign. I have seen 50 zones where you could easily do 100 safely. There are times on the 400 where it is completely safe to be doing 140 easy. Is it a school zone with kids and cars all over the street? Well then if you are doing 100 then you are probably scaring people and swerving in and out of traffice and that is what makes it unsafe. Is it 2am and the street is completely empty? Well then if there is nobody around and no vehicles then maybe it is no unsafe. If enforcement was about proving the speed to be unsafe then I would certainly have a lot less to complain about. Prove to me that the op doing 168 on the 401 was unsafe. Traffic, weather, road conditions, etc all play a part in this. It might have been unsafe, but it also might have been perfectly safe! They want to call it stunt driving, but the average person knows that just driving fast is not the same thing as doing stunts. Simply driving fast is not necessarily unsafe. Simply driving faster than a speed limit is not necessarily unsafe. Speed enforcement is promoted as keeping us safe, so then why not have to prove that it was unsafe? Insurance goes up because you supposedly did something that was unsafe, so why not have to prove that it was unsafe?
argyll wrote:
I'd love for you to go and tell the family of someone killed by a speeder that you think speed enforcement is not doing what's right.
If enforcement was so effective then nobody would get killed by speeders!
Some speeds are not safe. But speed limits are not about safe speeds. They are just a random numbers on a sign.
I have seen 50 zones where you could easily do 100 safely. There are times on the 400 where it is completely safe to be doing 140 easy.
Is it a school zone with kids and cars all over the street? Well then if you are doing 100 then you are probably scaring people and swerving in and out of traffice and that is what makes it unsafe. Is it 2am and the street is completely empty? Well then if there is nobody around and no vehicles then maybe it is no unsafe.
If enforcement was about proving the speed to be unsafe then I would certainly have a lot less to complain about.
Prove to me that the op doing 168 on the 401 was unsafe. Traffic, weather, road conditions, etc all play a part in this. It might have been unsafe, but it also might have been perfectly safe! They want to call it stunt driving, but the average person knows that just driving fast is not the same thing as doing stunts.
Simply driving fast is not necessarily unsafe. Simply driving faster than a speed limit is not necessarily unsafe. Speed enforcement is promoted as keeping us safe, so then why not have to prove that it was unsafe? Insurance goes up because you supposedly did something that was unsafe, so why not have to prove that it was unsafe?
How do you know the road is empty. People say, "the road was empty" but then get pulled over so clearly they couldn't see the road was empty. A road at 2 am is often empty but the one time it isn't with a pedestrian maybe the vehicle should be travelling at a slower speed. I don't disagree that some speed limits should be raised but your concept of no speed limits and prosecute those that hit someone is just insanity.
jsherk wrote:
Is it a school zone with kids and cars all over the street? Well then if you are doing 100 then you are probably scaring people and swerving in and out of traffice and that is what makes it unsafe. Is it 2am and the street is completely empty? Well then if there is nobody around and no vehicles then maybe it is no unsafe.
How do you know the road is empty. People say, "the road was empty" but then get pulled over so clearly they couldn't see the road was empty. A road at 2 am is often empty but the one time it isn't with a pedestrian maybe the vehicle should be travelling at a slower speed.
I don't disagree that some speed limits should be raised but your concept of no speed limits and prosecute those that hit someone is just insanity.
Former Ontario Police Officer. Advice will become less relevant as the time goes by !
My concept is that there needs to be harm, injury or damage. Harm can be defined as simply as "being scared", so nobody has to be hit or injured and nothing has be damaged for this to apply. An example would be erratic driving like weaving in and out of traffic on the 401. I guess if I ever run for Premier's office, I won't get your vote!
My concept is that there needs to be harm, injury or damage. Harm can be defined as simply as "being scared", so nobody has to be hit or injured and nothing has be damaged for this to apply. An example would be erratic driving like weaving in and out of traffic on the 401.
I guess if I ever run for Premier's office, I won't get your vote!
Again, so it's OK to drive like a bat out of hell along a road and the only problem comes when you pass the person who you didn't see because you were going too fast for that class of road ? Do you wear a seatbelt ? Why bother - you only need it when you crash ? If you aren't crashing then what's the point ? Aaaaah, because you MIGHT crash and you can't predict when that would be.........
Again, so it's OK to drive like a bat out of hell along a road and the only problem comes when you pass the person who you didn't see because you were going too fast for that class of road ?
Do you wear a seatbelt ? Why bother - you only need it when you crash ? If you aren't crashing then what's the point ? Aaaaah, because you MIGHT crash and you can't predict when that would be.........
Former Ontario Police Officer. Advice will become less relevant as the time goes by !
"I agree that the police are just doing their job... the job the government tells them to do. The problem though with both government and police is that they have taken an oath to the Queen, not to the people, so they have no requirement to serve us or do what is right for us." Last I checked you don't have the swear and oath to the Queen "I solemnly swear (affirm) that I will be loyal to Canada, and that I will uphold the Constitution of Canada and that I will, to the best of my ability, discharge my duties as a member of the (insert name of municipality) Police Services Board faithfully, impartially and according to the Police Services Act, any other Act, and any regulation, rule or by-law. So help me God. (Omit this line in an affirmation.)" Check your facts
"I agree that the police are just doing their job... the job the government tells them to do. The problem though with both government and police is that they have taken an oath to the Queen, not to the people, so they have no requirement to serve us or do what is right for us."
Last I checked you don't have the swear and oath to the Queen
"I solemnly swear (affirm) that I will be loyal to Canada, and that I will uphold the Constitution of Canada and that I will, to the best of my ability, discharge my duties as a member of the (insert name of municipality) Police Services Board faithfully, impartially and according to the Police Services Act, any other Act, and any regulation, rule or by-law.
So help me God. (Omit this line in an affirmation.)"
You also quoted incorrectly... Reg. 144/91: OATHS AND AFFIRMATIONS (and seems duplicated in Reg. 268/10: GENERAL) 2. The oath or affirmation of office to be taken by a police officer, special constable or First Nations Constable shall be in one of the following forms: I solemnly swear (affirm) that I will be loyal to Her Majesty the Queen and to Canada, and that I will uphold the Constitution of Canada and that I will, to the best of my ability, preserve the peace, prevent offences and discharge my other duties as (insert name of office) faithfully, impartially and according to law. So help me God. (Omit this line in an affirmation.) or I solemnly swear (affirm) that I will be loyal to Canada, and that I will uphold the Constitution of Canada and that I will, to the best of my ability, preserve the peace, prevent offences and discharge my other duties as (insert name of office) faithfully, impartially and according to law. So help me God. (Omit this line in an affirmation.) But yes I see there is an option to either take an oath to the queen or not. However both oaths are to CANADA which is a crown corporation owned/run/governed ultimately by the Queen and both are still NOT to the people.
You also quoted incorrectly...
Reg. 144/91: OATHS AND AFFIRMATIONS (and seems duplicated in Reg. 268/10: GENERAL)
2. The oath or affirmation of office to be taken by a police officer, special constable or First Nations Constable shall be in one of the following forms:
I solemnly swear (affirm) that I will be loyal to Her Majesty the Queen and to Canada, and that I will uphold the Constitution of Canada and that I will, to the best of my ability, preserve the peace, prevent offences and discharge my other duties as (insert name of office) faithfully, impartially and according to law.
So help me God. (Omit this line in an affirmation.)
or
I solemnly swear (affirm) that I will be loyal to Canada, and that I will uphold the Constitution of Canada and that I will, to the best of my ability, preserve the peace, prevent offences and discharge my other duties as (insert name of office) faithfully, impartially and according to law.
So help me God. (Omit this line in an affirmation.)
But yes I see there is an option to either take an oath to the queen or not. However both oaths are to CANADA which is a crown corporation owned/run/governed ultimately by the Queen and both are still NOT to the people.
Guys please brush up on your traffic engineering. Speed limits are set two ways; 1) Dictatorship or 2) Scientific/Engineering method via traffic survey. The safest speed of traffic is the speed that 85% of the traffic is going at or below, that is called the 85th percentile speed and it is shaped like a bell curve. It is not debateable unless you want to talk about "school zones" or "construction zones". Go to stop100.ca and you will see MTO traffic studies from 1993 or 23 years ago that will clearly show traffic speeds have not changed in 23 yrs. Long story long, I prefer to say I was going 38km/hr over the speed of traffic on a long straight section on a clear dry day for a very short period. Perhaps you are familiar with Stuart Highway in Australia. A recent 4 yr experiment of "no speed limit" looks like coming to an end with a change in government, ZERO speed fatalities. So clearly there is more to safe driving than posting pretty signs that are not based on science.
Guys please brush up on your traffic engineering. Speed limits are set two ways; 1) Dictatorship or 2) Scientific/Engineering method via traffic survey. The safest speed of traffic is the speed that 85% of the traffic is going at or below, that is called the 85th percentile speed and it is shaped like a bell curve. It is not debateable unless you want to talk about "school zones" or "construction zones". Go to stop100.ca and you will see MTO traffic studies from 1993 or 23 years ago that will clearly show traffic speeds have not changed in 23 yrs. Long story long, I prefer to say I was going 38km/hr over the speed of traffic on a long straight section on a clear dry day for a very short period. Perhaps you are familiar with Stuart Highway in Australia. A recent 4 yr experiment of "no speed limit" looks like coming to an end with a change in government, ZERO speed fatalities. So clearly there is more to safe driving than posting pretty signs that are not based on science.
Am really confused about this one, this morning i got a reduced speeding ticket (80km speed in 60 zone), and in the ticket the cop wrote 10km over the speeding limit.. and it has the 'R' code in it.. and the cop said i need to pay this and it doesn't have any points on it..
im fine with paying the ticket which is only 40 dollars but my biggest concern, will it show in my record ? or only tickets…
I got a ticket for driving with handheld device in Oct 2015 and I had requested for a trial. Yesterday I received the notice of trial (notice is dated 26-Jan-2017, court of trial is Newmarket, ON) and trial date is Mar 8, 2017. Today, I have sent in a registered request for disclosure (i.e on 29-Jan-2017).
Need some help here for the 1st time speeding ticket?
Sunday morning 12:10am when I was going home from work I was doing bit speeding on Gardiner. I was going with about 130km/h. I know its fast. I always take the same way and I know where the cops hide. They always hide entrance of the highways. If I will do speeding I always look my back and did look this time too. I took gardiner…
I just have a question in regards to the summons Under Part 1 I received for an rear end accident:
I was driving on the 2 lane road, and the car in front of me suddenly stopped, I had seen the car, and so I started to brake, however I heard noise from the back and looked int o the rear view mirror and saw a huge "truck" so I decided to go right, took the feet out of brakes but couldnt…
I have searched and I know the general rule is no, barring criminal charges or tresspassing. So let me use 2 specific issues I have.
1) I have some business in some area malls after hours. Once I have pulled into the mall lot on the way to the closest door I rarely stop at stop signs unless there is a car or person nearby. (i do not carelessly speed, i do show caution, just do not fully stop) Can…
In June at 401 London and Wellington I got hit twice, speeding which I didn't realize I was doing and cell phone. The Officer made me open my purse and show him my phone. I was going to meet a Rep of my Company in Kitchener, he called I answered. WRONG! The Officer wasn't even nice. My record was clean and he slapped me twice. I sat in the car and sobbed for 20 minutes as I was scared out of…
I wanted to "reply" elsewhere...but the more appropriate areas were "locked" to replies....so, here are a couple of questions...from a newbie to this site:
1. Who ARE you? (I'm a little edgy about conversing on a forum whose ownership is not stated anywhere on an "About" page") No offense intended whatsoever. Just like to know who I'm talking with/in front of.......your honor!
You are coming off of a highway exit and there are 3 lanes: right hand lane for right hand turn; middle lane for left AND right turn (but no straight thru since it is only a three-way intersection); and left lane for left hand turn. You are first in the middle lane, signalling to make a right.
CAN YOU make a right hand turn from the middle lane on a red if the traffic is clear?
Hey everyone first off I'd like to say great website, I have been reading and it is very useful
I'm posting today as I'd like to get some feedback on my situation and have a couple of questions. Please excuse the vagueness in some areas - I don't want my case to be identifiable given the small town.
So I was driving up north and was pulled over by an OPP SUV for doing 31 over. Cop drove past me,…
Hello! I'm under 16 currently and really want to drive. I know that section 37(1) says you have to be 16, but I've read that the HTA does not apply when you are in private property, so does that mean I can drive in a parking lot if I wanted to?
I was heading northbound on my bike downtown on friday. After the east/westbound lights went red and after a long pause I decided to get a head start and proceed before the light changed to green. About a block north of me an officer stepped out of an unmarked cruiser and pulled me over and gave me a $180 ticket. Now I see on this site that I should have been given points for it..but…
Got a ticket Saturday for insecure load. The officer was a real jerk and unfair. I had nothing hanging out the sides and the load wasn't that high. Just taking some junk to the dump. I was doing 40 on Ashley St in Foxboro, 4 ways on taking my time and nothing was going to fall out. I'm thinking about fighting it. Anyone experienced this before?
So I got convicted of a dui.. I have been riding my bike in the snow and taking the bus. I am a driving enthusiast and I will be going to the race track all summer but I NEED to drive something right now!
I have done lots of research and even an electric assisted bike that a 16 year old can drive legally on the road is not an option to someone with a dui suspension.
Hey this is my first ticket so as much information that people can provide will be appreciated. I was making the drive home going around 90kph(in a 80) behind what I knew was an undercover police car. The cop abruptly pulled to the side and pulled back in behind me to pull me over. Now I reduced my speed to below 80 when the cop pulled to the side but he claimed he had me clocked at 109kph and…
So I was heading home to today and I was in the left lane of the off ramp, some lady cut across her lane of traffic and across the off ramp median and hit the back side of my car! After a few meters of bumping (I was dazed and confused) I stopped the car.
I call 911 and was told to move the car to the shoulder.
Cop comes, interviews both of us, and lets the lady go! The cop proceeds to give…
An undercover cop, well not sure if he was even a cop to be honest, maybe a constable pulled me over after I passed him shortly after a construction zone. He asked me if I was in a rush and said that he was going 105 and I was going 120. It seems mostly from our conversation that he was pissed off that I passed him, because he never told me that I was speeding. None the less the ticket says…
I got this ticket last year in toronto and received court date recently.
Basically I parket on a street where there are marked spots for car parking but they were all faded with only the white edges showing. I assumed I was in the correct spot when I got out. I never noticed the fire hydrant in the bushes.
When I returned I saw the ticket and then noticed the fire hydrant and when I to the…
I would like to know if anybody could tell me what "V" stands for on the Code section of the Form 4. I think that it will be useful to understand what information is on this form in order to make a decision on what option we should chose.
I recently received a ticket for red light fail to stop under section 144 (18) of the Highway Traffic Act at the intersection of Dupont St. and Dufferin St. in Toronto with a set fine of $150 and total payable of $190. I think I entered the intersection on a yellow, however that is not the way the officer saw it. During the traffic stop the officer was polite bordering on friendly…
Got my first ticket last Thursday and I have a couple of questions. I was driving westbound on Moore St. (west of Bayview) and made a left onto a residential street at a 4-way stop sign. It was my first time driving through that area - was driving my girlfriend to a wisdom tooth surgery.
The police were set up to catch people, as that intersection had a no left turn sign from 7-9 am (buses…
